|
A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
|
|
| How to Post Photos |
REGISTER (click here)
|
|
A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
|
|
| How to Post Photos |
REGISTER (click here)
|
|
 SMP Silver Salon Forums
 American Silver before sterling
 american coin silver
|
 SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: american coin silver |
|
JUANSI Posts: 13 |
posted 10-28-2002 05:59 PM
  
What is exactly American coin silver? Is it silver produced from melting coins? Thank you. IP: Logged |
|
WGS Posts: 136 |
posted 10-30-2002 02:03 PM
According to the Rainwater Encyclopedia ... Coin: By 1830, COIN, PURE COIN, DOLLAR, STANDARD, PREMIUM or C or D were used to indicate 900/1000 parts of silver used with 100/1000 parts of copper. Coin silver was used by silversmiths to whom sterling silver (925/1000) was not available. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
t-man-nc Posts: 327 |
posted 10-31-2002 06:06 AM
While my reply may not be scientific, it may add something to the romance of the topic.... When the "New World" was first settled by Northern Europeans (late 1600's early 1700's) there were no mints or treasuries and for that matter no government with which to produce any coinage or currency. These early peoples had to use the few coins they brought with them or acquired in trade or barter from seamen or other traders they came in contact with. This coinage was from many different lands and realms the world over. Silver, while available in plentiful quantities was as of yet undiscovered to a large extend in what would become the Continental United States (North America). The Spanish was acquiring great quantities from South and Central America that was being shipped to Europe, but for the most part the raw materials for the silversmiths trade was hard to come by. So during those early days, the coins in circulation came in the form of English Sovran's, Spanish Doubloons and Pieces of Eight, Dutch Gilders, all manners and form of coinage was used to purchase and sell items not acquired in barter. With all these different types of coinage it is logical that people determined the value of these different coins by their weight and purity as well as it could be determined when the trading of these items took place. The average person would not have had the ability to evaluate these coins for weight and purity and would take them to the local Silversmith to get the pieces weighed and a value established. Many silver coins of that day were clipped, a practice of cutting slight slivers of silver off the edges to save and use elsewhere. This practice was sometimes used to cheat on the weight of the coin and still receive full face value of the coin, and in other circumstances used to extract a partial value if no coins of smaller denominations were available to produce change, as was popular in the used of pieces of eight where the coin was cut into pieces called "Bits" or "Bites" (I have seen it spelled both ways and am not sure of the correct spelling), and these pieces could then be used for other purchases at other opportunities.... Now to the part about the "Coin Silver", During those days, there were no police (an idea of the 1800's), only constables and elected officials and town leaders and the ability to determine disputes about ownerships of coins was a real dilemma should some be found or stolen. Again the local populace turned to the Silversmith (Bankers of the day) to assist in protecting the family's wealth often measured in silver coinage. When a person had collected enough Silver Coins, they might go to the local Silversmith and ask that a utensil such as a spoon or fork or mustard pot be crafted from the silver so that it could be easily be identified from the markings from the "Makers Mark" (belonging to the local smith) and by the Initials or Family Name engraved on the piece (generally the combination of the two was enough to identify the piece). This gave the person a reasonable expectation of having the ability to have the silver recoverable if lost or stolen. In addition to having the silver recoverable, it allowed the owner to have a useful object available to them selves and there families as well as a source of pride to be able to exhibit wealth wile entertaining guests. Some times these products might be given as gifts to newlyweds for their new lives together... The other primary reason was to have a source of raw material for the Silversmith to be able to make many useful products for the population of the day, and lets not forget the Jewelry that would be produced for gifts and personal use.... Such is the Romantic world of Coin Silver to me... Others may or may not agree and I am sure there is a lot of material that will support these "Assumptions or Ramblings" (Smile) as well as a great deal of information I will have missed or at the least misinterpreted....
IP: Logged |
|
FredZ Posts: 1070 |
posted 10-31-2002 10:44 AM
I found your explanation to be correct. It is true that smiths were commissioned to make silver in the "latest fashion" and to mark them with their maker's mark and often engraved with the initials of the owner to make identification easier incase of theft. Many newspaper notices of the time describe stolen silver and will mention the marks on the silver they are seeking to recover. There were no banks at the time and having your wealth converted into useful items was a way of displaying your wealth to your friends and others of the community. It was also a delight to view and was often passed down through the families. The term coin silver comes to us with generations of wonderful history. The use of silver coins as a source of material was a necessity during the early years of this country. IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 11-02-2002 07:25 PM
Not to rain on anyone's romance, but .... .... I've always suspected that the real story is a bit more complicated than the standard tale told by my fellow Forum members above. And I believe the term "coin silver" is a misleading and often misunderstood one. Surely colonial American silver was only rarely made from circulating coins -- which were always scarce here, since they were constantly hoarded and sent back to the mother country in exchange for much-needed imported goods. The colonists would have been much more likely to melt down old, unfashionable, or damaged silverware (mostly English or European) and have it refashioned, as was the practice in England. No doubt coins were occasionally thrown into the smelter's pot, especially the widely circulating Spanish dollars with their fineness of .900. These, plus the occasional piece of lower-grade European silver contributed by immigrants from the Continent, must have lowered the fineness of some American silver to below the .925 sterling standard. (But by no means all of it: many pieces of so-called "coin" silver test at the sterling standard or even higher!) The use of "coin" as a designation of fineness dates only from the early 19th century -- after the United States, in 1792, adopted the Spanish colonial standard of .900 for its silver coinage. I suspect what happened is that some American silversmiths of that time, groping for a term to describe the purity of their silver, chose "coin" because they figured that if the English "sterling" was guaranteed the same fineness as British silver coins (.925), then American silver should be guaranteed as fine as American silver coins (.900). But "coin silver" no more means that it was fashioned from melted coins than "sterling" means that it was fashioned from melted pounds sterling. Then in the 1860s, when American silver manufacturers like Gorham and Tiffany began to compete on the European market, they adopted the term "sterling" as one that was already well-known and trusted worldwide. (It also helped to reassure domestic consumers who had now began ordering their silver from distant corporations rather than from the trusted local silversmith.) In fact, even in the heyday of so-called coin silver, very few silversmiths actually described their wares as "coin." I suspect the term was mostly popularized after the fact, by jewelers, silversmiths, and antiquarians, as a misapplied catchall term for pre-1860s American silver. That said, I admit that occasionally one does come across a piece of colonial silver -- usually church silver -- with an inscription describing it as having been made from actual coins. But this was almost always the bequest of someone who had died, and whose money was, quite literally, turned into a memorial. As I explained already, it would have been irrational behavior for a living person with a hoard of precious coins to have them fashioned into spoons and tankards. I don't have my reference library with me at the moment, so I am writing this off the top of my head, but does anyone have more substantive evidence on either side of the question? And I'd be very interested to know the first recorded use of the term "coin silver." [This message has been edited by akgdc (edited 11-02-2002).] IP: Logged |
|
June Martin Forum Master Posts: 1326 |
posted 11-03-2002 01:06 PM
Deborah Dependahl Waters, Curator of Decorative Arts & Manuscripts at the Museum of the City of New York, authored an article in 1977 titled "From Pure Coin: The Manufacture of American Silver Flatware, 1800-1860." This sounds like a good resource to further the discussion on the topic of coin silver. P.S. If you find a copy of this article, we'd love to hear about it and would appreciate a copy. [This message has been edited by June Martin (edited 11-03-2002).] IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 11-03-2002 01:49 PM
Thanks, June ... sounds like an interesting article. I've found a copy listed at a local library, so I'll check it out and would be glad to copy it for you. IP: Logged |
|
June Martin Forum Master Posts: 1326 |
posted 11-03-2002 04:01 PM
Fabulous! Thank you! IP: Logged |
|
FredZ Posts: 1070 |
posted 11-03-2002 04:57 PM
I have reread the Waters' article "From Pure Coin" as printed in the Winterthur Portfolio 12". It talks about the use of coins for the making of silver objects in the early 19th century and notes several documentations of the use of them even as late as 1856. Ms. Walters discusses several of the terms used to describe silver content during the 19th century and talks extensively about the manufacturing practices of silver spoons and the use of machinery. Recommended reading for anyone. IP: Logged |
|
Dale Posts: 2132 |
posted 11-03-2002 05:51 PM
Sometimes I find a mark that uses the word 'American' or 'US' to indicate coin silver. And there were references to the use of 'English' to indicate sterling. Wood and Hughes used the 925 standard and refered to their work as 'English'. But they are usually considered, for early things at least, to be coin silver makers. Coin is a catchall catagory that sweeps up all US made silver before 1860, and some after that point. It also has a sense that the piece is made by an artisan not a manufacturer. IP: Logged |
|
Fitzhugh Posts: 136 |
posted 11-04-2002 03:30 PM
Please keep in mind that the term "Coin" took on different meanings througout the new United States. In the Back Country of the Southeast in the late 18th and 19th centuries, "commercial" access to silver was limited, thus many regional silversmiths literally took in coinage to complete a commission. As another member mentioned, scrap silver was utilized, and some smiths even advertised for it. Old out-dated forms were often melted down for new modern versions of silver. Such reliance would not have been so great among the coastal states, and in fact would have been nearly wiped out with the advent of readily available rolled sheets of silver in the 1820's. This is roughly the same era in which large silver houses in New York & Philadelphia began wholesaling silver to the South. Ironically, the term "Coin" continued to be stamped on some silver well into the 1850's, and coin grade silver was produced until the 1870's by the few self-sufficient smiths still in operation. IP: Logged |
|
t-man-nc Posts: 327 |
posted 11-04-2002 04:58 PM
I seem to remember reading that Winterthur did some analysis of silver content in several articles made in different parts of the country, and over a span of years. I read about it in a book on California silver, that I have in Savannah; I am in Raleigh for the next couple of weeks and cannot get to it. The analysis was done to determine if spectral analysis of silver content or impurities could be used to plot the origin of a particular (the object was to establish where the raw silver came from, Nevada or California). While it did not give the hopped for results it did show that the disparity of silver purity from the marking (Coin, 925, Sterling, Premium, Standard, Dollar, etc.) from the actual contents. This in it self goes to add some possible validity to the earlier post that "other silver was used in conjunction with the coins in the melting pots". If I remember the ranges they ran from about .780 up to .956 or something like that or at least that kind of range (Does anyone have access to these results?) I am sorry for my poor memory. I have to agree that during these earlier times that any silver (Continental, Sterling or other) would have been used when and where available, I am sure that if some forms of raw / native silver were available that it too would have been used. (William Callicut - Introduction section of "Silversmiths of Virginia" by Dr. Cutten) It appears to me that all types of silver was used to product the earlier "Coin" silver.
Barter was the primary method of exchange, but how do you tax bartered goods, and as we all know, all governments will tax you, weather they are a Democratic Government or a King.... They must have their "Pound of Flesh".
I realize that I am only going of my own kind of strange logic, but I think that we are all right from different perspectives….
IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 11-04-2002 06:49 PM
Here are the results of the x-ray fluorescence testing reported in Silver in the Golden State: maker/pattern/item/approximate date/silver content * Marked Coin The tesing was based on a similar study of colonial silver done at Winterthur. I do not have that report, but remember that the purity range went from 750/1000 to 950/1000, though the majority of pieces met or exceeded the English sterling standard. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 11-04-2002 07:16 PM
I did a quick check of my tree and found the following: John Burnham (1791-1870) "The handmade silver spoons of Mr. Burnham have won him a great reputation and every newly married couple was expected to have a half dozen made from six Spanish mill dollars." (Cabot's Annals of Battleboro) John Osgood (1770-1840). His shop ". . . had two rooms, the front one a salesroom and the rear one a work shop where was a forge for melting the brass for the clocks, and the old Spanish dollars for the spoons, shoe and knee buckles." (Whitcher's A Personal History of the Town of Haverhill) John Potwine (1698-1792). In his daybook (1752-53), a note records the sending of "Spanish Dolers for the making" to Daniel Henchman, his former partner. John Faulk Robinson (1812-1867). Advertised in the Delaware Gazette (1842) noting the prize cups made from old Spanish coins for the Wilmington Rifle Corp. I also found more than 75 makers whose advertisements included cash paid for old silver or words to that effect. They date from the mid 18th to mid 19th century. [This message has been edited by wev (edited 11-04-2002).] IP: Logged |
|
akgdc Posts: 289 |
posted 11-04-2002 09:33 PM
Amazing .... Juan's two-line query from the Canary Islands has sparked quite the discussion over on this side of the Atlantic. Quite an interesting discussion, too. What seems to be emerging is a consensus that lots of kinds of silver -- from Spanish dollars to old shoe buckles -- went into the "coin silver" crucible. Exactly what, and how much of it, depended on location and circumstances (interesting Southern perspective from Fitzhugh). The extensive Winterthur tests that "Smaug" refers to are in the book "American Silver at Winterthur," by Ian Quimby. Like the tests that WEV cites, these results were all over the map, even from silversmiths of the same period. For instance, in the late 1700s, Daniel Van Voorhis made a skewer with a fineness of about .870, while Joseph Richardson Jr. made a teapot with a fineness of about .960. Generally, however -- especially in colonial pieces -- the average seems to be a bit above sterling, say .930. This would seem to disprove the pure-Spanish-dollar hypothesis (since the coins' fineness was about .902.) I note that the same Winterthur book reproduces a bill for flatware from John Curry, 1827, in which Curry records that the customer brought him 86 oz of old silver ("forkes & Spoons" "6 tumblers" and "1 Fish Knife") which Curry melted down and supplemented with a further 49 oz (source unrecorded) to make a new flatware service. Let's not forget that the reason there are now 500 surviving spoons from the 1850s for every one surviving spoon from the 1750s is, in part, that most of the early spoons were melted down to make the later ones. IP: Logged |
|
t-man-nc Posts: 327 |
posted 11-05-2002 01:12 PM
While re-reading my "Flynt and Fales" (I recommend it to anyone interested in "Coin" old silver),on page 35-36 under the heading of "Coin Silver" it says; "After the Revolutionary War banks were established in this country, and coins with milled edges were minted with close attention to standardization of weight, it was no longer so important to weight each coin and the practice grading became discontinued. It was also no longer necessary for a customer to bring the actual coins to the silversmith, who by 1800 was able to purchase rolled silver in sheets for which the customer paid him cash. It was shortly after this that the silversmith began stamping his silver products "coin", to indicate that the metal was of the same purity as in former days, although not made from coins." I would suggest that JUANSI try to acquire one if he is interested in coin silver. You would have good start on the history of silver in the US. I agree, this is a great discussion... I have to say I hope that there are a few more of those around , than 500 to 1 or my collection is not going to much further before 1790... I have a few earlier that that, but WEV keeps telling me that all my "Hot Finds" are from somewhere else like Canada....(Smile)
IP: Logged |
|
FredZ Posts: 1070 |
posted 11-05-2002 05:20 PM
We have to take the information gathered by the analytical tests done in Quimby's book in context. It was facinating to read the chapter talking about the tests made at Winterthur. He explains that the scope used can only tell us the surface metal content and can do nothing to tell us the total composition of he alloy used to make the specimen. As a siversmith I can tell you that I can create a surface on the metal that is high in silver content by depleting the copper and other alloys from the surface with the acid bath (pickling)). I might heat and dip a bowl 4 or more time in the "pickle" while shaping the bowl. Each time thickening the surface layer of fine or pure silver. This is why the samples taken from the bottom or hidden parts of the specimen indicated a higher content of silver. If the samples are taken from a surface where "fire scale" has been exposed by polishing, the copper content is going to be higher. The scope does tell us if trace elements appear in the alloy and sometimes these help us to judge authenticity. I think we can safely say that the use of coins and/or older silver were both used by the early smiths to produce their wares. There may be many reasons for a smith not to use rolled silver in the production of an object. For one the cost of rolled sheet is more expensive than scrap. Even today costomers will bring in scrap silver... even coins to be used in the making of something they are commisioning. We may never know the exact dates for the terms used but we can be sure that a silversmith used the metal he had on hand to fashion his works of beauty and utility. I constantly remember the old saying: "believe little or nothing of what you read...." IP: Logged |
|
FredZ Posts: 1070 |
posted 11-05-2002 08:33 PM
As if this post needed further information... The Waters' article "From Pure Coin" mentions that the importation of Spanish dollars accelerated from 2.5 million dollars in 1825 to 4.7 million dollars in 1830. Fletcher & Gardiner of Philadelphia delt directly with Mexican bullion dealers to import silver coins and during the 1860's silver manufacturers like Gorham Manufacturing Company purchased silver coins and pure silver bricks from New York dealers. The coins sold by these dealers came from Mexican & Peruvian banks. I think there is plenty evidence to state that coins were commonly used to manufacture silver items from the 17th and well into the 19th century. I love this fabulous forum! IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 03-20-2009 12:32 AM
Here's an American example of a near mid nineteenth century exclusive practice of coins being used to make silver objects: in Geer's 1845 Hartford City Directory, William Rogers advertised spoons, forks & c. made of only of Dollars. [This message has been edited by bascall (edited 03-20-2009).] IP: Logged |
|
Richard Kurtzman Moderator Posts: 768 |
posted 03-20-2009 02:27 PM
This subject has been addressed several times. Here is a thread which will link to other threads on this topic. american coin silver IP: Logged |
|
bascall Posts: 1629 |
posted 03-20-2009 07:04 PM
Look up!  IP: Logged |
|
asheland Posts: 935 |
posted 07-21-2016 04:12 PM
Very interesting thread! I thought I would add something of interest in regards to the discussion of X-ray analysis... I recently got this Coffin Tablespoon from a dealer who is a good friend of mine, and he recently got a scanner gun, so, after purchasing this tablespoon from him, I scanned the bottom of the bowl where the most wear would typically be found. Here are the results: IP: Logged |
|
ahwt Posts: 2334 |
posted 07-22-2016 10:36 AM
That is interesting, thanks for showing the results. Gold, tin, and lead in tiny amounts with copper. The copper was intentionally added, but I wonder how the other metals got in. I should also add that Miles Gorham, according to WEVs site, lived to be 100 years old. I wonder if this Gorham family had any relationship to the other Gorham family. [This message has been edited by ahwt (edited 07-22-2016).] IP: Logged |
|
Scott Martin Forum Master Posts: 11520 |
posted 07-22-2016 12:33 PM
What I am about to add is from memory, so I except those who have more actuate or correct info will step in. As I recall James Elkington, in the UK, is credited with the development of the first electrolytic refining or Electrowinning process in the 1860's. During the 1880's, in the Newark, New Jersey, USA, Balbach Smelting began electrolytic refining. Since the advent of electrolytic refining the amount of trace metals found in silver has steadily declined. Contemporary forgers of historic silver are often tripped up when the silver analyst shows the silver is too pure (i.e., no trace elements, just silver and copper) for the time period the forgery is pretending to be from. IP: Logged |
|
asheland Posts: 935 |
posted 07-22-2016 03:48 PM
True, I've read many times that the trace elements are a good sign for early silver as the refining techniques were crude. It's basically what you want to see. My other Marquand and Paulding spoons read similar on the same machine. As for the connection to Gorham of Providence, RI, I am not sure. That has crossed my mind as I am a huge fan of the Gorham Company's work. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 07-22-2016 04:12 PM
Charles Field Gorham --2nd Cousin Twice Removed Charles L. Gorham -- 3rd Cousin Twice Removed Jabez Gorham -- 2nd Cousin Once Removed John Gorham -- 2nd Cousin Twice Removed John Gorham -- Nephew Miles Gorham -- Son Richard Gorham -- Son [This message has been edited by wev (edited 07-22-2016).] IP: Logged |
|
Polly Posts: 1970 |
posted 07-22-2016 10:26 PM
Fascinating! IP: Logged |
|
Kimo Posts: 1627 |
posted 09-15-2016 03:30 PM
I would imagine that forgeries from many years ago might be caught by having the silver "too pure" but that more modern forgeries might not be so easily detected. Modern forgers have access to all of this information and can easily either manufacture silver with these impurities, or simply take old scrap silver or old worn out silver coins with only scrap value or old silverware that has been broken or otherwise rendered worthless except for its scrap value and make some nice "old silver" complete with impurities and use it to forge objects. Or they can do what is often done and that is to take an old relatively contemporaneous object with no markings or markings of a less desireable smith and simply add new markings of someone desireable. With today's computerized 3-D scanning software making a die for marking that is an exact duplicate complete with any minor imperfections or the original would not be a difficult task. Poor forgeries are caught out, but good forgeries can lie in people's collections or in museums and never be identified as such. IP: Logged |
|
ahwt Posts: 2334 |
posted 09-15-2016 11:01 PM
Earlier in this thread reference was made to an article by Deborah Dependahl Waters in Winterthur Portfolio 12. This article is entitled "From Pure Coin: The Manufacture of American Silver Flatware 1800-1860" and is available for viewing from JSTOR. I am not sure how JSTOR works, but one can view a limited amount of articles per month for free and pay a small fee if you want to download the article. One simply registers and enter the article you want to see. [This message has been edited by ahwt (edited 09-18-2016).] IP: Logged |
|
seaduck Posts: 350 |
posted 09-18-2016 10:19 PM
You can get access to JSTOR through research libraries -- universities, private athenaeums, and some large public libraries (e.g Boston Public Library). I would ring up the reference librarian in your local library and see if they can get access for you. Reference librarians are amazingly helpful and often thrilled by esoteric requests. I was once interested in a paper that had been submitted as a thesis at Winterthur in the 60s. Got in touch with our small town reference librarian. He couldn't have been more delighted to help. And a couple of weeks later, he called and I was able to pick up the typed paper (with glued-in photos) and peruse it at leisure for two weeks. Electronic stuff like JSTOR should be a breeze. IP: Logged |
All times are ET | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a
|
1. Public Silver Forums (open Free membership) - anyone with a valid e-mail address may register. Once you have received your Silver Salon Forum password, and then if you abide by the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines, you may start a thread or post a reply in the New Members' Forum. New Members who show a continued willingness to participate, to completely read and abide by the Guidelines will be allowed to post to the Member Public Forums. 2. Private Silver Salon Forums (invitational or $ donation membership) - The Private Silver Salon Forums require registration and special authorization to view, search, start a thread or to post a reply. Special authorization can be obtained in one of several ways: by Invitation; Annual $ Donation; or via Special Limited Membership. For more details click here (under development). 3. Administrative/Special Private Forums (special membership required) - These forums are reserved for special subjects or administrative discussion. These forums are not open to the public and require special authorization to view or post. |
|
copyright © 1993 - 2022
SM Publications
All Rights Reserved. Legal & Privacy Notices |
